Research Title:
1. Use this rubric to objectively evaluate research outputs. You may give a score in between 1.00 and 3.00, and 3.00 and 5.00.
2. Passing score is 3.50
3. Should the research output fail your evaluation, please write all your suggestions and recommendations to help the researcher improve his/her study.
Criteria 5 (Exemplary)
Identifies the report as a
Title 1 Title
Systematic Review
Describe the rationale for the
2 Rationale review in the context of what
is already known
Provides an explicit
statement of questions and
Introductio objectives being addressed
n with reference to their key
elements (e.g., population or
3 Objectives
participants, concepts, and
context) or other relevant key
elements used to
conceptualize the review
questions and/or objectives.
Method Indicate whether a review
protocol exists; state if and
Protocol where it can be accessed
4 Registratio (e.g., a Web address); and if
n available, provide registration
information, including the
registration number.
Specifies characteristics of
the sources of evidence used
Eligibility as eligibility criteria (e.g.,
5 (e.g., years considered,
Criteria years considered, language,
and publication status), and
provide a rationale.
6 Informatio Describes all information
n Sources sources in the search (e.g.,
databases with dates of
coverage and contact with
authors to identify additional
Adopted fully from the Holy Angel University Research Office’s rubric
3 (Good)
Limited identification of the
report as Systematic Review
Limited description of the
rationale for the review in the
context of what is already
known
Provide a limited statement
of questions and objectives
being addressed with
reference to their key
elements (e.g., population or
participants, concepts, and
context) or other relevant key
elements used to
conceptualize the review
questions and/or objectives.
Limited study characteristics
of the sources of evidence
used as eligibility criteria
language, and publication
status), and provide a
rationale.
Limited description of the
information sources in the
search (e.g., databases with
dates of coverage and
contact with authors to
1 (Fair)
Minimal identification of the
report as Systematic Review
Minimum description of the
rational for the review or in
the context of what is already
known
Provides minimal statement
of questions and objectives
being addressed with
reference to their key
elements (e.g., population or
participants, concepts, and
context) or other relevant key
elements used to
conceptualize the review
questions and/or objectives.
Minimal study characteristics
of the sources of evidence
used as eligibility criteria
(e.g., years considered,
language, and publication
status), and provide a
rationale.
Minimal description of the
information sources in the
search (e.g., databases with
dates of coverage and
contact with authors to
0 (Unacceptable) Score
Does not identify the report
as Systematic Review
No description of the rational
for the review
No statement of questions
and objectives being
addressed with reference to
their key elements (e.g.,
population or participants,
concepts, and context) or
other relevant key elements
used to conceptualize the
review questions and/or
objectives.
No indication if a review
protocol exists; state if and
where it can be accessed
(e.g., a Web address); and if
available, provide registration
information, including the
registration number.
No study characteristics
No information sources
 Criteria 5 (Exemplary)
sources), as well as the date
the most recent search was
executed.
Presents full electronic search
strategy for at least one
7 Search database, including any limits
used, such that it could be
repeated.
States the process for
Selection
selecting sources of evidence
of sources
8 (i.e., screening and eligibility)
of
included in the Systematic
evidence
Review.
Describes the methods of
charting data from the
included sources of evidence
(e.g., calibrated forms or
Data
forms that have been tested
Charting/
9 by the team before their use,
Extraction
and whether data charting
Process
was done independently or in
duplicate) and any processes
for obtaining and confirming
data from investigators.
List and define all variables
for which data were sought
10 Data Items
and any assumptions and
simplifications made.
Provides a rationale for
Critical conducting a critical appraisal
appraisal of included sources of
of evidence; describe the
11
individual methods used and how this
sources of information was used in any
evidence data synthesis (if
appropriate).
Describes the methods of
Synthesis
12 handling and summarizing
of results
the data that were charted.
Adopted fully from the Holy Angel University Research Office’s rubric
3 (Good)
identify additional sources),
as well as the date the most
recent search was executed.
Presents limited electronic
search strategy for at least
one database, including any
limits used, such that it could
be repeated.
Limited information on the
process for selecting sources
of evidence (i.e., screening
and eligibility) included in the
Systematic Review.
Limited description of the
methods of charting data
from the included sources of
evidence (e.g., calibrated
forms or forms that have
been tested by the team
before their use, and whether
data charting was done
independently or in
duplicate) and any processes
for obtaining and confirming
data from investigators.
Limited list and definition all
variables for which data were
sought and any assumptions
and simplifications made.
Limited description of the
rationale for conducting a
critical appraisal of included
sources of evidence; describe
the methods used and how
this information was used in
any data synthesis (if
appropriate).
Limited description of the
methods of handling and
summarizing the data that
were charted.
1 (Fair) 0 (Unacceptable) Score
identify additional sources),
as well as the date the most
recent search was executed.
Presents minimal electronic
search strategy for at least
Presents no electronic search
one database, including any
strategy, cannot be repeated
limits used, such that it could
be repeated.
Minimal information on the
process for selecting sources No information on the
of evidence (i.e., screening process for selecting the
and eligibility) included in the study
Systematic Review.
Minimal description of the
methods of charting data
from the included sources of
evidence (e.g., calibrated
forms or forms that have
been tested by the team No description of the data
before their use, and whether chart process
data charting was done
independently or in
duplicate) and any processes
for obtaining and confirming
data from investigators.
Minimal list and definition all
variables for which data were
No variables listed
sought and any assumptions
and simplifications made.
Minimal description of the
rationale for conducting a
critical appraisal of included
sources of evidence; describe
No rational available
the methods used and how
this information was used in
any data synthesis (if
appropriate).
Minimal description of the
methods of handling and
No synthesis of results
summarizing the data that
were charted.
 Criteria 5 (Exemplary) 3 (Good) 1 (Fair) 0 (Unacceptable) Score
Consistently applied APA Conformed to most APA
Inconsistent and several
guidelines especially in guidelines. Minor lapses to
mistakes of the application of
APA APA regards to citations, and citations, references and/or APA guidelines not observed
13 APA on citations, references
formatting formatting references. No structural, minor problems with at all.
and/or with structure,
grammatical or punctuation structure, grammar and
grammar and punctuation.
errors punctuation.

Your comments/suggestions for the researchers to improve their work are solicited and will be highly appreciated! Please write them below.

Criteria Recommendations
Title
Rationale
Objectives
Protocol Registration
Eligibility Criteria
Information Sources
Search
Selection of Sources of Evidence
Data Charting/Extraction
Process
Data Items
Critical Appraisal of Individual
Sources of Evidence
Synthesis of Results
APA Formatting

Reviewer:

Name:________________________________________

Signature:_____________________________________

Date:____________________

Adopted fully from the Holy Angel University Research Office’s rubric